1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,395,740 as well as KRW 27,248,150 among them, from January 23, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the instant condominium 602 (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”), who is an aggregate building of 545 ground as the village in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu. The Plaintiff is performing the duty of imposing and collecting management fees for the instant aggregate building (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”), and the Defendant is the owner of the instant condominium 602.

B. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the instant real estate with the non-party Netropia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) and occupied the instant real estate by the non-party company. The non-party company unpaid KRW 27,248,150 in total of the management expenses from October 1, 2015 to June 2016. During the foregoing period, the arrears due to the unpaid management expenses are KRW 3,147,590.

C. Article 72 of the Management Rules of the Condominium Buildings provides that “A sectional owner shall pay management expenses necessary for the maintenance and management of an aggregate building to a management body (Paragraph 2),” and that “A possessor shall be jointly and severally liable with sectional owners for the expenses incurred during the occupation period of an exclusive ownership (Paragraph 3).”

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleading, and purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, as a sectional owner of the instant real estate, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid management expenses and late payment charges, totaling KRW 30,395,740, and delay damages for KRW 27,248,150, among them, from October 2015 to June 2016.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that it is not permissible to claim the payment of management expenses even without notifying the fact that the non-party company has a duty to notify the defendant that the management expenses were overdue, but it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff has a duty of disclosure as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is the original copy of the payment order of this case against the plaintiff KRW 30,395,740 and KRW 27,248,150 among them.